K. Narayanasamy @ Narayanan v. The Stateby the Inspector of Police,Pollachi

Bail SlipThe Appellant/Accused Viz., K. Narayanasamy @ Narayanan inSC.No.25 of 2004 on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge,Coimbatore was directed to be released on bail by the order of thiscourt dated 23.9.2004 and made in Crl.MP.9385/04 in Crl.A.No.973/04.IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDate:- 29.09.2006CoramThe Honourable Mr. Justice K. RAVIRAJA PANDIANand The Honourable Mr. Justice M. CHOCKALINGAM Crl. A. No.973 of 2004K. Narayanasamy @ Narayanan... Appellant/Accused..Vs..The Stateby the Inspector of Police,Pollachi Taluk Police Station,Vadakkipalayam Police Station,Coimbatore District.(Crime No. 87/03)... Respondent/ComplainantAppeal filed under section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against theJudgment of the first Additional Sessions Judge, Coimbatore dated19.4.2004 in SC.No.25/04.For Appellant : Mr. K. KalyanasundaramFor Respondent : Mr. P. Kumaresan , Addl. Public Prosecutor https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ JUDGMENT(Judgment was delivered by M. CHOCKALINGAM, J.)Sole accused, in a case of murder, on being found guiltyfor the offences under Sections 302 and 404 of the Indian PenalCode, was awarded with the punishment of life imprisonment togetherwith fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonmentfor a period of one year for an offence under Section 302 of theIndian Penal Code and Rigirous Imprisonment for three years for anoffence under Section 404 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentencesshould run concurrently, has challenged the judgment passed by the IAdditional Sessions Court, Coimbatore in S.C. No.25 of 2004 dated19.4.2004. 2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of the casecan be stated thus:-(i) The deceased Mayilathal was living at MettukkaduGardens, Vadakkipalayam village along with accused and P.W.1. P.W.1is her nephew, while the accused is her cousin brother. She washaving cattles and also having landed properties. Though theaccused and the deceased were cousin, they were living as husbandand wife, which was known to others also. P.W.1 was employed in theshop of P.W.11, where, he was having a shop, dealing with or sellingcattle fodder. There were occasions, in which P.W.1 used to informP.W.11 about the illicit intimacy between the deceased and theaccused and the quarrel that arose between them in respect of themoney transaction. P.W.1, who was in Kerala, came to the house ofthe deceased one and a half years before the occurrence andtherefrom, they had a quarrel, since the deceased Mylathal had theidea of giving the entire property and also money to P.W.1 and shewas also having a Bank account, where she had the amount ofRs.20,000/- in her account. (ii) Just four days prior to the occurrence, the accusedwent to the shop of P.W.11 and informed him that P.W.1 did not bringthe salary to home and pay to them and apart from that, the deceasedhas got soft corner for P.W.1 and hence they would face anyconsequence. (iii) `On the date of occurrence i.e. on 21.6.2003,P.Ws.5, 7 and 8 found the accused/appellant near the house of thedeceased at about 11 O' Clock and on the same day, P.W.1 went to theshop of P.W.11 by 8.30 a.m. and came to the house at10.30 a.m. andagain went to the shop. When he returned home at 1.45 p.m., hefound the deceased in a pool of blood. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (iv) Then, immediately P.W.1 proceeded to the policestation and gave complaint Ex.P1 to P.W.19, the Sub Inspector ofPolice who was present at that time. On the strength of the same, acase was registered in Crime No.87 of 2003 for the offences underSections 302 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code and Express FirstInformation Report Ex.P17 was despatched to the concerned Court andthe Inspector of Police P.W.18. P.W.18 took up investigation,proceeded to the spot, made an inspection in the presence ofwitnesses and prepared Ex.P2 Observation Mahazar and Sketch Ex.P18.Thereafter, the Inspector of Police conducted inquest on the body inthe presence of witnesses and Panchayatars and the inquest report ismarked as Ex.P19. The dead body was sent to the GovernmentHospital for the purpose of autopsy. (v) P.W.11 Doctor Somasundaram conducted autopsy on thedead body and gave his opinion Ex.P16 that the deceased appears tohave died due to shock and hemorrhage and due to the injuries to theorgans prior to 24 hours of autopsy. (vi) Pending investigation, on 29.6.2003, the accusedappeared before the Panchayat Union President, who is P.W.12, a WardCouncilor and came forward to give confession statement voluntarily.The said statement was recorded by P.W.13, the VillageAdministrative Officer. The admissible portion of the same wasmarked as Ex.P4. The accused was taken and handed over to thepolice station. When the accused was in the custody of the police,he gave confession statement voluntarily in the presence ofwitnesses P.Ws.14 and 15. The admissible portion of the same wasmarked as Ex.P9. (vii) Pursuant to the confession statement, the accusedproduced M.O.8 aruval, M.O.9 nose screw and M.O.10 series ear screwsand the same were recovered in the presence of witnesses underMahazar Ex.P11. The said material objects were sent to the Court.The accused was sent for judicial remand. All the Material Objectswere subjected to chemical analysis. Ex.P28 Chemical analysisreport and Ex.P27 Serological report were received. On completionof investigation, final, report was filed as per the charge and thecase was committed to the Court of Sessions. Necessary charges wereframed against the accused.3. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecutionexamined P.Ws.1 to 19 and relied on Exs.P1 to 28 and also reliedon M.Os.1 to 19. On completion of examination of witnesses on theside of the prosecution, when the accused was questioned underSection 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, he denied them as false. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. The Trial Court, after hearing the arguments advancedby either side and scrutinized the materials available on record,found the accused guilty and awarded the punishment referred above.Hence this appeal is filed at the instance of the appellant.5. Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellant, learnedcounsel would submit that in the instant case, the prosecution hadno direct evidence to offer. It relied on only circumstantialevidence namely P.Ws.5, 7 and 8, who saw the accused near the placeof occurrence at about 11 a.m. P.Ws.5 and 7 did not speak about thecase of the prosecution and they turned hostile. As regards P.W.8Veerammal, wife of Subban, the Investigating Officer hadcategorically admitted that he examined one Veerammal, wife ofNagaraj and he had further admitted that at the time ofinvestigation, the said Veerammal was aged only 20 years, whichclearly reveals that P.W.8 was not the one examined by theInvestigating Officer and it was the question of impersonation.Hence the same has got to be rejected.6. Learned counsel further added that as regards motive,the case of the prosecution is that the deceased Mayilathal had lotof money and the same were put in the Bank, where P.W.1's name wasnominated to receive the benefits. The Bank Manager P.W.16 hasspoken to the fact that the deceased Mayilathal had an account inthe Bank and the balance of Rs.20,000/- is available in thataccount, but there was no nomination. Thus, it would be clear thatthe motive, which was attributed to the accused for committing thecrime, was not proved by the prosecution. 7. Learned counsel added further that in the instant case,in the absence of any direct witness, the case rests only oncircumstantial evidence and hence duty is cast upon the prosecutionto prove the motive part. If the same is not proved, theprosecution case cannot be believed. 8. Learned counsel added further that the prosecutionrelied on the alleged confession statement made by the accusedthrough P.W.13 Village Administrative Officer, pursuant to which,M.Os.9 and 10 were recovered, which, according to the prosecutionbelonged to the deceased. From his evidence, it is quite clear thathe was not acquainted with the accused earlier. If the occurrencetook place on 21.6.2003, there was no need for the accused toapproach the Village Administrative Officer on 29.6.2003 and gavesuch a statement, that too a person who was not acquainted with him. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

9. Learned counsel added further that the accused wastaken custody, pursuant to which, he gave confession statement inthe presence of two witnesses P.Ws.14 and 15. Following theconfession statement M.Os.8 to 10 were recovered from him. Insofaras recovery part was concerned, P.W.14 has not stated anything aboutM.Os.8 to 10. The other witness P.W.15 has categorically admittedthat all the papers were signed in the police station. Hence, thesetwo witnesses cannot be relied upon. Thus the alleged confessionstatement, recovery of material objects and motive part fail and inthe absence of any other circumstances to find the accused guilty,the Trial Court was not correct in finding the accused guilty andhence, he is entitled for acquittal in the hands of this Court.10. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for theappellant also relied on the decisions reported in the case ofSAKHARAM v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (1993 L.W. (Crl.) 29) followedby this Court in MANIKKUNDU v. STATE (2004(1) C.T.C. 1970).11. This Court heard the learned Additional PublicProsecutor on the above contentions. This Court paid its anxiousconsiderations on the above contentions.12. It is not a fact in controversy that one Mylathal wasdone to death in the incident that had taken place on 21.6.2003between 10 and 11 a.m. and following the inquest made by theInspector of Police, the body was sent to the Doctor for post-mortemand the Doctor, who has conducted autopsy, has categorically opinedthat the deceased died due to shock and hemorrhage. Hence, the factthat Mylathal died due to homicidal violence was not disputed and ithas to be recorded so.13. It is true that the prosecution had no direct evidenceto offer, but the prosecution relied on three circumstances.Firstly, P.Ws.5, 7 and 8 found the accused near the place ofoccurrence at about 11 a.m. on 21.6.2003. Secondly, the accusedappeared before P.W.13 Village Administrative Officer and gave extrajudicial confession on 29.6.2003. Thirdly, pursuant to theconfession statement made by the accused, M.Os.8 to 10 wererecovered in the presence of P.Ws.14 and 15. 14. The first contention put forth by the learned counselfor the appellant that in the instant case, the motive has not beenproved has got to be discountenanced. Admittedly, the accused isthe cousin brother of the deceased Mylathal, but they were living ashusband and wife. P.W.1 is the nephew of the deceased. During therelevant time, he was also living with them. Mylathal hadsufficient fund in deposit in her Bank account, which was provedthrough P.W.16 Bank Manager. P.W.11 was the shop owner and P.W.1 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ was employed under him. From the evidence of P.W.11, it would bequite clear that there were occasions, in which, P.W.1 has broughtto his notice about the illicit intimacy between the accused and thedeceased and quarrel between them in respect of the moneytransaction. 15. P.W.11 has categorically deposed in his evidence thatfour days prior to the occurrence, the accused went to his shop andinformed him that P.W.1 was not bringing his salary to the home andMaylathal had a soft corner with P.W.1 and they would face anyconsequence at any time. Insofar as the evidence of P.W.11 isconcerned, the Court cannot entertain any doubt, since under anycircumstances P.W.11 had any inimical terms against accused orinterest in the prosecution witness. From the evidence of P.W.11,it could be seen that the deceased was living with the accused asparamour, though she happened to be the cousin sister and theaccused has grievance over Mylathal that she has soft corner withP.W.1. Hence the motive part remains proved. In thecircumstances, the contention of the learned counsel for theappellant that the prosecution rested its case on circumstantialevidence and motive part must be proved, the Court may not have anyquarrel over the decision cited by the learned counsel for theappellant referred above. In the instant case, the prosecutionproved the motive part. 16. According to the prosecution, the occurrence tookplace on 21.06.2003 between 10 and 11 a.m. and the complaint wasgiven immediately at about 2.00 p.m. by P.W.1, after seeing the deadbody and the case was registered on the same day. According to theprosecution, the accused appeared before P.W.13 VillageAdministrative Officer and gave confession statement voluntarily andthe same was recorded on 29.6.2003, which is marked as Ex.P4. 17. Before accepting the extra judicial confessionstatement given by the accused, the Court applies a test viz. beforewhom extra judicial confession statement was made, which inspiresthe confidence of the Court. After applying this test, the Court issatisfied that P.W.13 is the Village Administrative Officer, throughwhom the extra judicial confession was given. Immediately afterrecording the statement, he took the accused to the police andhanded over him. At this juncture, the evidence of P.W.13 is to becompletely scrutinized. There is no reason as to why P.W.13 shouldcome forward before the Court and give evidence to connect theaccused in crime. Apart from that, all the material particulars,which were admitted by the accused and recorded by the VillageAdministrative Officer and stood corroborated by othercircumstances, speak about the motive for committing the crime. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

18. With regard to the overt act attributed against theaccused, in the post-morterm Certificate, it is stated that numberof stab injuries were found on the deceased, which caused her death.The material particulars, which are necessary for murder, have beenfound to be admitted by the accused and the Court is well relied onthe extra judicial confession statement given by the accused beforethe Village Administrative Officer P.W.13 on 29.6.2003. In theinstant case, insofar as the evidence of P.Ws.14 and 15 with regardto recoveries are concerned, M.O.8 aruval, M.O.9 nose screw andM.O.10 series ear screws were all recovered and identified by theaccused and thus, the accused was unable to say how he happened tobe in possession of the same in particular M.O.9 nose screw andM.O.10 ear screws, which were worn by the deceased at the time ofoccurrence. If to be so, when he was in possession of the same, hewas responsible to explain about the possession of the same, but hehas not given any such explanation.19. In view of the above, the Court is of the consideredopinion that the above said circumstances are sufficient to pointout the guilt of accused with the crime. Though the witnesses,according to whom, they saw the accused near the place of occurrenceat about 11 a.m. on 21.6.2003, since the prosecution could not bringforth any direct evidence, in the opinion of the Court, the otherfacts are sufficient enough to point out the guilt of the accusedand hence, the Court has to necessarily accept the case of theprosecution. It is a case where the accused committed the murderof Mylathal and the Trial Court is perfectly correct in awardinglife imprisonment together with other punishments mentioned above.Hence the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.ssa.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTo 1. The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Pollachi. 2. Do- Thro' The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore. (for information) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trichy. (for information). 4. The I Additional Sessions Judge, Coimbatore. 5. Do Thro' The Principal Sessions Judge, Coimbatore. (for information). 6. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Coimbatore. 7. The District Collector, Coimbatore. 8. The Director General of Police, Madras – 4. 9. The Inspector of Police, Pollachi Taluk Police Station, Vadakkipalayam Police Station, Coimbatore District. 10. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.Crl.A. No.973 of 2004NG(CO)SR/27.10.2006